Q: for the police re disclosure

[Kickaha]

Instead of fighting something that looks like it is correct - meaning that his blood/alcohol exceeds the limit, and at 528, he's well over the limit - why aren't you instead telling your son to get his shit together and not drive drunk. That way people like those who I have lost as a result of moronic people who choose to drink and drive, would be alive and I'd be a happier person.

Red bling accepted gracefully (as I'm sure it's on its way).

Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

What are you two on about, personal responsibilty is so over rated

[madbikeboy]

Yeah, I apologise, random ideas like "responsibility" pop into my head sometimes, and with suffering from Tourettes, I have to sorta yell it out loud.

Here's another idea (in lieu of common sense breaking out). Lets get all the drug dealers, the drunk drivers, and all the politicians into Hamilton one night. Get them all lit up, free booze and drugs, then encourage them with free access to firearms and all the cars they can crash. Shouldn't take too many of those nights before we fix most of the problems...

[jrandom]

I don't think any charge no matter what calls for a guilty plea based soley on guilt.

You just reworded my comment about the prevailing attitude that there is no moral culpability associated with a crime unless the police get the paperwork right.

[davereid]

When you ask for disclosure, the police will give you all the information they intend to use against you in court.

They can still use stuff they haven't disclosed as long as you haven't asked for it, and it is later called for.

So, for example, if you ask for disclosure, and they provide a simple statement of facts, and thats what they prosecute with, then they are fine.

If you ask for more data at trial they can provide it.

So for example, if at trial for, you ask if the policeman was trained to use the device, the police can provide that data.

But, if you asked for operator training information as part of disclosure, and the police did not provide it, the police could not automatically then produce training records as evidence of the operators skill.

In other words, if you asked them as part of disclosure to show the operator was skilled to use the device, and they did not provide that evidence, the court may assume it did not exist.

[fireliv]

I would contact them and find out IF there is anymore disclosure, as it is only fair that you get all the information before you enter your plea.
Just remember that there is really only a few defences to this charge, and if you enter a not guilty plea now, and enter a guilty plea later cos you really have no defense, your sentence will be "harsher" than if you had plead guilty in the first place.

Your son has no convictions so would prob get a fine & disqualification (Manatory).

Good luck

[doc]

This is the problem nowdays, you maybe guilty as sin but some snakeoil type lawyer gives you hope you can beat the charges. I've been thru this, naively made an honest statement I was guilty as, paid money to said snakeskin wearing evangalist, cos he could still get me off. Until the day off the court case , after forking over a small fortune, when he recommended we plead guilty. Ever heard of Peter Kaye .

[Winston001]

Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

I think Tank is looking for guidance rather than a clever "out" for his son. I tend to agree - do the crime, do the time but we don't know Tank isn't saying exactly that. Besides, the son might have his own ideas and need to learn his own lesson.

Something like 95% of drink driving prosecutions result in straight-up guilty pleas

[Tank]

Instead of fighting something that looks like it is correct - meaning that his blood/alcohol exceeds the limit, and at 528, he's well over the limit - why aren't you instead telling your son to get his shit together and not drive drunk. That way people like those who I have lost as a result of moronic people who choose to drink and drive, would be alive and I'd be a happier person.

Red bling accepted gracefully (as I'm sure it's on its way).

Presumably he actually dunnit. Right? It was him driving the car, and there's no reason to suspect that the BA measurement was inaccurate?

So why isn't he just pleading guilty?

If the facts of a matter allow it to be argued in court, well and good, but I personally have no time for people who try to weasel out of shit they actually did. A fair cop is a fair cop.

Sorry to disappoint Madbikeboy - no red forthcoming.

I actually understand and in a lot of ways agree with both you and JRandom.

There is a little more to it in that he thought he was sober and had stopped drinking a hours before he was called (he was asleep) to collect friends who's dedicated driver had let them down - he actually thought he was ok to drive and was trying to do the right thing. But - yes he was still over the limit.

Regardless - normally we would say pay and walk (hes already sold the car to pay the fines and purchased a bike) - so hes taking it seriously.

The problem comes in that he loses his citizenship application for another 3 years (has both job and relationship issues) and prevents him joining the fire brigade or police - his chosen professions.

I hear what you are saying - but its hard when you are a Dad. Having said that I wouldn't want to be the father of a kid who has been killed by a drink driver also.

[Tank]

Also - a thanks to all who have offered advise on the thread or via PM.


C

[madbikeboy]

Sorry to disappoint Madbikeboy - no red forthcoming.

I actually understand and in a lot of ways agree with both you and JRandom.

There is a little more to it in that he thought he was sober and had stopped drinking a hours before he was called (he was asleep) to collect friends who's dedicated driver had let them down - he actually thought he was ok to drive and was trying to do the right thing. But - yes he was still over the limit.

Regardless - normally we would say pay and walk (hes already sold the car to pay the fines and purchased a bike) - so hes taking it seriously.

The problem comes in that he loses his citizenship application for another 3 years (has both job and relationship issues) and prevents him joining the fire brigade or police - his chosen professions.

I hear what you are saying - but its hard when you are a Dad. Having said that I wouldn't want to be the father of a kid who has been killed by a drink driver also.

Okay, so tell the judge that, lay out the context, and you might find he will be leniant and agree a diversion or whatever. Whatever the outcome of the trial, he's already ahead on points - he hasn't killed anyone, and he doesn't have to live with the results.

Tank, you've always come across as a good guy, while I have some sympathy for you, and for your son's plight, at 22 years of age, he should have enough of a grasp to understand he was in no condition to drive, hours of sobering out don't equal sober.

But, if he was trying to do the right thing, then lay it out for the judge to decide, you will have an opportunity to present this if you ask.

[ynot slow]

In todays pc world,two things spring to light, 1)were/was person over limit yes/no,simple really breath alcohol or blood alcohol content,if over yep guilty.2)If a lawyer says I can get you off if this procedure did/didn't happen at time of arrest then good luck,more often the lawyers bill will be dearer than fine and you don't lose license,or the judge will say tough shit the reading does say over the limit,to bad and larger fine plus dodgey lawyer bill to boot.

And if like many without a load of traffic/criminal offences the disqualification will be maybe 6 months unless way over the limit.

[Toaster]

See the Court of Appeal item I just added. It specifies "police job sheets"

not required for EBA - be careful - other judgements are only of use if they are actually relevant to the facts of the case before them. there is more to it than you seem to think.

[Toaster]

Okay, so tell the judge that, lay out the context, and you might find he will be leniant and agree a diversion or whatever.

Diversion for drink driving? Yeah right.

[Toaster]

Personly if he is found guilty then he needs the book thrown at him but untill that happens dad or anyone else for that matter has the right to query the evidence or the lack of it.


Skyryder

What a double standard.... and here you are saying Scott Watson was innocent when found guilty on two charges of murder.

[jrandom]

... prevents him joining the fire brigade or police - his chosen professions.

Yeah... I'd say it'd be about time to start looking at different career ideas.

Because, let's face it, he did drive drunk, didn't he? He's not going to escape a conviction. Time to accept that and move on.

The Army's an option which would still be open to him if he's dead set on doing something that involves wearing a uniform and getting paid badly.